|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 27, 2017 13:37:02 GMT -5
From the weaponsman.com blog: At least its ambidextrous?
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 27, 2017 13:43:16 GMT -5
That was a given with big army here in the US. There's a perception against pistols without a safety and if carries over amongst officers who are making the decisions. But this is also the same people who make soldiers carry their rifles empty while on base. And while on patrol, in some accounts I've heard... For a weapon which will spend most of its service life either unloaded or in a holster, thus completely covering the trigger, there has to be one more step involved in bringing a defensive weapon in action. I wonder if a soldier would receive a valorous restraint medal, if they couldn't properly disengage the safety on their shiny new M17, and some mass murderer state-side was just tackled and subdued by others instead?
|
|
|
Post by whitebear620 on Jan 27, 2017 20:56:09 GMT -5
From the weaponsman.com blog: At least its ambidextrous? Thank God it's ambidextrous, that's the one thing I think absolutely needs to be ambidextrous for lefties.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jan 28, 2017 5:50:06 GMT -5
Safety catches on, whilst patrolling? That's asking for trouble. I don't care how easy it is to sweep a safety on any firearm. Right handed safeties are also ambidextrous if you leave them off and let the other 3-4 safeties in the gun do their job and leave it in the holster where the trigger CANNOT be pulled.
|
|
|
Post by whitebear620 on Jan 28, 2017 14:12:05 GMT -5
Safety catches on, whilst patrolling? That's asking for trouble. I don't care how easy it is to sweep a safety on any firearm. Right handed safeties are also ambidextrous if you leave them off and let the other 3-4 safeties in the gun do their job and leave it in the holster where the trigger CANNOT be pulled. I mostly agree except that in the off chance that safety gets pushed on somehow, a lefty would have to adjust their grip to reach safety. Either have it ambidextrous or ditch it.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jan 28, 2017 18:52:03 GMT -5
Safety catches on, whilst patrolling? That's asking for trouble. I don't care how easy it is to sweep a safety on any firearm. Right handed safeties are also ambidextrous if you leave them off and let the other 3-4 safeties in the gun do their job and leave it in the holster where the trigger CANNOT be pulled. I mostly agree except that in the off chance that safety gets pushed on somehow, a lefty would have to adjust their grip to reach safety. Either have it ambidextrous or ditch it. Oh, I totally agree. And quite frankly this is my point. If a tiny bit of discussion goes into the whole topic it becomes obvious that an external safety on something that is meant to be dangerous is only safe if you keep a loaded weapon at a time when it is not required to be used. Ergo if it is not required to be used why is it loaded? Stupid, stupid procurement/decision making people. For once, I think we the British did something right with procurement in that we bought Glock 17s. Sure, the 19 has better recoil (apparently, I have fired both but so far apart I couldn't comment...) but it is a full sized handgun with the best number of rounds available for a common soldier. No fancy bits, just a point and shoot pew pew.
|
|